Pages

Friday, July 31, 2015

Tonight I begin teaching a new Anglican Studies course for Christchurch, Introduction to Anglican Theology.

On the face of it, the theology of the Anglican church is Anglican theology so we should have a course on it.

But digging a bit deeper - yes, I have done a bit of prep for the course - things are not quite that simple. A lot of theology within our church is 'just theology'. We are as happy with reading Barth as with reading Benedict. We draw on Augustine and Aquinas. We even read the same Bible as other Christians! There is not distinct Anglican way of understanding the Trinity or the Incarnation.

Nor can we claim a distinctive Anglican contribution to the history of theology. That lots of superb Anglicans have been superb theologians and made superb contributions to that history doesn't make for 'Anglican theology.' When Rowan Williams wrote his masterpiece on Arian it was accidental to what he wrote that he was an Anglican.

We can claim, however, that some Anglican theologians have contributed mightily to specific Anglican debates over the sense and sensibility of the Anglican church. Par excellent here is Richard Hooker. At a crossroads for the newish Church of England in the late 16th century, Richard Hooker took on Puritan opponents who wished for a different character to the church they were presently dissatisfied with. In batting away their bowling attack, Hooker both set out theologies of sacraments, orders and such, sharpened up the lines and contours of Anglican emphases such as we find in the Thirty Nine Articles.

All to the good, but is this as good as 'Anglican theology' gets?

I'll let you know, and you can let me know, if you discover more going on than meets the eye!

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

#1 Vaughan Roberts on
God the Father; #2 Phil Ashey asks are we comfortable enough in our experience
of God to let go and trust him? #3 and #7 talks from the Keswick Convention;
#10 prayers needed for Northern Nigeria and Pastors facing death sentences in
Sudan; #12 pictures of the heavens; #13 something heavenly from Tallis and #14
some young people musicians from Auckland.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Ian Paul draws attention to 'what I think is one of the best, short arguments against recognising same-sex marriage'. It comes from Sydney but not from an Anglican. Archbishop Anthony Fisher, delivered a lecture recently, an edited version of which is on the ABC Religion and Ethics site.

I appreciate the points Ian Paul underlines and won't repeat his work here. Read it for yourself! Read the comments too because there is a robust response to Fisher's arguments and to Paul's motivations and aims in publishing his response to the lecture.

Incidentally, for non Australian and non Kiwi readers, NZ has approved same sex marriage as a matter of civil law and Australia has yet to do so, though a huge momentum is building for change.

I appreciate Archbishop Fisher's set of arguments very much because reading around the internet these days, I find myself less than impressed by what I am reading. A strength of his lecture is that he takes on five common slogans for same sex marriage:
- It's all about justice
- Sexual differences do not matter
- It is all about love
- It is all about the numbers
- It does not affect me.

These points made by Fisher stand out for me as they relate to our shared theological interests across the Ditch and around the globe in relation to the core question, 'What is marriage?':

'Though customs around marriage vary between cultures and over time, there is remarkable consistency about these four dimensions of marriage:

that it unites people of opposite (but complementary) sex;

that this union is intended to be faithful ("to the exclusion of all others");

that this union is potentially fruitful ("to have and to hold" each other as "man and wife" do and so open to children); and

that this union is final ("till death do us part").

In almost every case, a fifth dimension has been that this union is regarded assacred.'

'What is unjust and untruthful is to say in our laws that there is nothing distinctive about male and female, husband and wife, father and mother, or nothing important about bringing the two halves of humanity together in marriage. It is unjust to children to say having a Mum and a Dad should not matter. It is discriminatory towards those already married or who would like in future truly to marry to redefine marriage in a way that reduces it to emotions and sex.'

'I have here argued that to admit SSM would not be to broaden the group of those to whom marriage is open, but rather to change altogether what it is we call marriage; that this is not the further evolution of marriage but its further hollowing out - not liberation of that institution from the confines of religion and prejudice so much as deconstruction of that institution. '

Postscript:
The weakness of the slogans Fisher takes to task is highlighted by this article in the New York Times. It would be unjust (would it not?) to deny such open minded ethical cheating? No one can deny that love drives this movement forward. It seems to be popular. It certainly doesn't affect me. So why wouldn't the church approve ethical cheating?
Now there's a question!

Friday, July 24, 2015

Far reaching or far fetched? A couple of articles in the Catholic Herald have caught my eye. If they are 'on the money' then they have far reaching implications for the future shape of global Christian life. But they might be a bit far fetched. What do you think?

Luke Coppen thinks the Pope is reaching out to unify 'Evangelicals' with the Catholic church. Imagine this were to happen: it would be the largest re-alignment in Western Christianity since 1517. In 2015 it seems unimaginable (e.g. because of the huge lack of unity among Evangelicals themselves). But the world is changing fast. It is not unimaginable that the rise of Islam's global influence will focus the minds and hearts of Christians. In 2065, might we find we drag our feet no longer towards a re-marriage of the strands of Western Christianity?

"The key to understanding the environmental push is the Holy Father’s priority on the Church in mission. If the Church goes green, it is to improve the cultural climate for evangelisation. In this, Pope Francis’s pastoral strategy is to join an effort that has been underway for decades in both Orthodoxy and Anglicanism."

Now I absolutely get the point in the paragraph above when aligned with a point in the paragraph below, that a key to evangelization is for the church to keep close to the culture of the people it wishes to reach with the gospel:

"In the 1980s and early 1990s, as it became clear in both Constantinople and Canterbury that their respective communions were becoming increasingly marginal players in their own cultures, a conscious decision was taken to move environmental issues to the forefront of their public witness."

But, as an Anglican, I am not at all sure that we (via Canterbury) are capable of saying that we are increasingly distant from our own cultures, what will we do, I know let's choose environmentalism as an issue which will lead to re-connection. My strongest suspicion is that we simply saw environmental degradation and decided that we ought as biblical people to do something about it.

Nevertheless, there is some thing to reflect on here as Laudato Si makes waves around the world. If we want the gospel to be heard, what 'climate of listening' are the churches creating (or damaging) as we go about our public, corporate witness?

Back to Coppen's article. If there really is a document in the Pope's office which speaks of Catholics and Evangelicals "united in mission because we are declaring the same Gospel" then that goes to the heart of Christian unity: our message and our mission based on that message.

If this understanding of the gospel is centred on Jesus, then we may be hopeful of greater unity in the years ahead. I was particularly heartened to read this in the Coppen article:

"Francis is said to have told an Evangelical leader recently: “I’m not interested in converting Evangelicals to Catholicism. I want people to find Jesus in their own community. Let’s be about showing the love of Jesus.”"

There have, of course, been signs for a while now that church going in the States is in decline. And there are certainly many signs of social change in the States which bear witness to a dramatic loss of influence by the churches on the citadels of power.

But here, 'Down Under' in the stretched version of the term, stretched all the way to the South Pole, we have an intriguing consequential sign of that decline.

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Nothing excites me more ecclesiastically these days than visiting churches where loads of young people and/or families with young children are present. I had such an experience visiting a local parish on Sunday morning.

The day before I returned from being part of the Wellington Diocesan Ministry Conference at El Rancho, Waikanae. Although I had been invited to give some Bible studies and workshops, the Conference was the opposite of draining or tiring for me. It was a real spiritual tonic. Great worship, excellent contributors (i.e. other than me), super cool MCing by my colleague Spanky Moore.

But best and most invigorating was simply being with the ministers (ordained and lay) of the Wellington Diocese and their families. It was a chance to catch up with some old friends as well as to mix and mingle with a large group of folk new to me. About 160 in total. Very energetic. Pure gold.

I didn't do a count but it seemed like over half were aged under 40. Very cool. Let's face it, when most of one's working life has been spent in the working for the good health and growth of our Anglican church, it is quite satisfying to think that this church might still be around in fifty years' time! Incidentally, simultaneously, a national church Theological Hui teeming with young people was being held in Cambridge, Waikato.

But what sort of church will ACANZP be in fifty years' time?

Well, going on my visit to the Diocese of Wellington, it will not be the church it is today. I say that because my experience at the weekend was an experience of a diocese as it changes from what it once was to what it is becoming. (Trust me on this. It's partly hard to put my intuition into words. To the extent that I could put it into words, I haven't time to set them down).

The fascinating thing about Anglicanism in these islands (and elsewhere across the Communion) is that even as we attempt to change or resist change on matters such as Motion 30, we are changing in various ways as we attempt to adapt what we do as 'church' in order to connect with community around us.

We are in a race for survival. Some stats suggest a graphline which will zero out sometime in 20??. But in the race for survival we are recognising that the fittest survive and the fittest are those who adapt themselves to changing environments.

My experience at the weekend (both the conference and the local church service) highlights some ways in which we are winning the race.

#1 Andrew Wingfield Digby on God's faithfulness; #2 Kendall Harmon on our
fulfilment in worship #3 Bishop Rennis Ponniah today on God's new covenant
identity for His people; #11 Bishop Angaelos Coptic Church General Bishop in
the UK talking about persecution in Egypt, and relations among Christians and
with the secular world; #13 a glimpse of Pluto.

PRAYER
Please pray for the persecuted church: for two pastors under threat of death in
Sudan; for churches under attack in Nigeria and Baghdad; and for rising legal
repression in Egypt, Iran, Nepal and China and for the Diocese of South
Carolina.

Blessed be the Lord God of Israel : for he hath visited, and redeemed his
people;
And hath raised up a mighty salvation for us : in the house of his servant
David;
As he spoke by the mouth of his holy Prophets : which have been since the world
began;
That we should be saved from our enemies : and from the hands of all that hate
us;
To perform the mercy promised to our forefathers : and to remember his holy
Covenant;
To perform the oath which he sware to our forefather Abraham : that he would
give us;
That we being delivered out of the hands of our enemies : might serve him
without fear;
In holiness and righteousness before him : all the days of our life.
And thou, Child, shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest : for thou shalt go
before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways;
To give knowledge of salvation unto his people : for the remission of their
sins,
Through the tender mercy of our God : whereby the day-spring from on high hath
visited us;
To give light to them that sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death : and to
guide our feet into the way of peace. [Luke 1:68-79 the prophesy of Zacharias]

Saturday, July 18, 2015

I have had the privilege over the last three days of delivering three Bible studies on Manaakitanga - Generous Hospitality (Genesis 18:1-5, Luke 7:36-50, Hebrews 13:1-16) to the Diocese of Wellington's annual ministry conference (held at El Rancho, Waikanae). In order for participants at the conference and for any other interested reader to have access to the notes, without the need to cut down a forest, I am publishing them on Scribd at this link.

Tuesday, July 14, 2015

Participating on Sunday morning past in the service of St Luke's in the City (Anglican), Christchurch, it was difficult not to reflect ecumenically ...

Currently, in the Knox Presbyterian church/hall complex, three distinct denominational congregations meet, joining together after their services for morning tea: the Knox congregation itself meets in their splendidly restored church, the Durham Street Methodist church meets in the Knox Hall and St Luke's Anglican meets in the Knox Chapel.

As a dyed in the wool Anglican I am the first to appreciate that our denominational distinctives are valuable and to be cherished. Were it to be proposed that the three congregations 'get over' their differences and merge into one large inner city church, I imagine myself being wholly sympathetic to those who metaphorically wept on my Anglican shoulder about what they would lose by doing so.

There is also the not insignificant treasure that each congregation has a community life of its own. Loss of community has its own griefs. No one would wish further grief on Christians in Christchurch post the quakes!

Nevertheless, I am going to ask the question of all our church(es') life in Aotearoa New Zealand, when are we going to form the 'Church of New Zealand' instead of being a series of Anglican/Presbyterian/Methodist/Baptist/Roman Catholic/etc churches in New Zealand?

What, after all, is the Presbyterian church in New Zealand but a distinctively Scottish version of the Reformed churches of Europe? The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia is an English version of the moderately reformed Roman Catholic church. That's just to take up two of the transplanted churches from the northern hemisphere. While we have a reasonable flow of Scottish and English people migrating to NZ and, presumably, glad to find local versions of their respective mother churches, is that sufficient reason to continue to have Scottish and English churches in a country far away?

Is it God's will that Christianity in Aotearoa New Zealand is always a transplant?

Might God have a plan for a truly indigenous Christian church in these islands?

Should we be praying for a prophetic figure to lead us to a truly Kiwi church?

After all, it has been significant leaders whom God has used in past times to initiate new church movements and developments: Luther and Germany, Knox and Scotland, Cranmer and England, Wesley(s) and Methodism. Within Roman Catholicism, significant developments have taken place through the likes of Augustine, Francis (former and present!), Ignatius Loyola, Mother Teresa and John Paul II.

Of course the church is global and we should be at least slightly suspicious about attempts to localise the universal church in a Kiwi way. There is nothing intrinsically virtuous about being Kiwi.

On the other hand, most manifestations of the global church which are embedded in our churches are from other cultures and nations. There is nothing intrinsically superior in those cultures and nations, but an ingrained NZ deference often presupposes that what comes from overseas is better.

Why should differences between churches here be shaped by historic church divisions in Europe?

Why can't we have our own local disputes which determine who we are as churches and why we do what we do? (Mostly kidding with that question: God wants a united Aotearoa church!)

What do you think?

Should we be satisfied with the current state of ecumenicity in these islands?

Monday, July 13, 2015

#1 Vaughan Roberts and Paul Perkins consider heaven on earth; the combined
choirs of Kings' College and St John's College sing evensong from Cambridge;
#3 Andrew Goddard is rightly resting from his Herculean exploration of
the New Testament in a year, but Peter Carrell and Stephen Trott continue
commentary on the readings; #11 Bear Grylls on becoming a Christian and Clive
field considers evidence of changed in attitudes to religions in the UK over
the last decade; #12 a choir from the Netherlands formed in 2002 in the English
choral tradition.

If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shall be saved.
Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
For the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be saved.
[from Romans 10:9-10]

Friday, July 10, 2015

This morning I am a little bit confused which won't surprise regular readers here who know I am a bear with a small brain.

On Monday I thought I read in the news that Greece had overwhelmingly voted No in Sunday's referendum to further austerity. But today I read in the news that a new deal involving 'harsh austerity' is close to conclusion.

The problem with being a small brained bear as that my brain can't cope with tension and near contradictions in vast conceptual matters like economics and politics. Imagine if I tried to be an Anglican and had a go at being theological in the context of the Anglican Communion :)

I may add a para or two about the posts later today. In the meantime I encourage you to read them. My own question is this, When we read, digest and inwardly mark such erudition, are we coming closer to a convergence as to the Way Forward?

A deal, if you like, of a Greek kind, in which Sunday's No becomes Friday's Yes.

Added Later:

Ian Paul's Post's Notable Point
Divergency of views in the Cof E about the status of Scripture itself, captured in this cited paragraph from a post by John McGinley describing his experience as a participant in one of the formal shared conversations on sexuality which the CofE is organising through this period:

"I returned with great concern that the majority of the participants had lost any clear understanding of the Bible as authoritative in their lives. The approaches were shocking to me, and, as a result, my approach was shocking to them. This confirmed that we are already two churches, one which sees the Bible as a helpful collection of writings from which to draw inspiration but which can be used to say whatever we want it to, or simply be ignored. The other seeks to submit to Scripture as we interpret it and apply it to our lives and trust in its goodness as God’s word to us, even when it is painful and challenging. The result of this is that there were many moments of incredulity expressed by people from different positions as they realised others in the room held a belief so far from their own."

Trevor Morrison's Post's Notable Points

Something I am looking for, from a conservative perspective, is language which opens a way forward for our church which conservatives can connect with, empathise with, engage with and even agree with. While I do not think Morrison's overall argument through his post is convincing that we have now reached a different period of time and challenge for the kingdom of God and so previous restrictions can be relaxed, I do think he offers some language worth pausing on.

The argument is not convincing in my view because it does not nail down why we could think, from Scripture, that its prohibitions were limited to certain prevailing circumstances which could then be relaxed when those circumstances changed. It is one thing for us to reason to ourselves 'the prohibitions were because of such and such reasons, concerning Israel and its surrounding nations, concerning the church and its surrounding Hellenistic culture', it is another to draw the conclusion that Scripture intends the prohibitions to no longer apply in a different time and cultural space. (Incidentally I am in agreement with Morrison on a number of points he makes along the way, including the reservation of marriage itself to 'a man and a woman.'. See now, also, this.)

But that is not the end of the post and its contribution to our debate (especially not when Morrison writes from within the Anglican church of these islands). When Morrison writes this paragraph he speaks to me:

"I have now read many stories from people whose testimony of Christian faith resonates as credible with me (see, e.g., John Shore, “UNFAIR: Christians and the LGBT Question”), yet who testify of an overwhelming longing for same-gender relationships and inability to form deep heterosexual ones. When I read those stories, I do not hear the voices of people who are trying to stir up our sympathy so they can maintain a way of life they secretly know is sinful. In fact, I do not hear the voices of sinners at all, except in the general way that all of us are sinners. I do not see people who culpably chose to foster longings for kinds of relationships that prima facie belong in the set that God calls abominations. I hear the voices of people who are in distress."

The strongest argument for blessing same sex partnerships lies in this paragraph. It is essentially a pragmatic, pastoral argument. In today's world, where many aspects of kinship, domestic life, and socialization are different to the households and communities of the world of the Bible, might the church find a way to support those who long for relationship, not in order to sin but in order to love, not in order to rebel against God but in order to form a partnership for mutual society and support in their walk with God?

My personal argument through this series of posts, against the backdrop of Motion 30 discussion in our church, is that those of us who are unconvinced that same sex partnerships should be blessed (let alone that we should move to embrace equal marriage) could or even should consider whether our church might be inclusive and accommodating of those who are persuaded that such partnerships might be blessed in the context of church.

From this perspective, Ian Paul's post warns against being a church which pushes itself to an either/or decision, to the exclusion of a possible middle way. Trevor Morrison's post opens up a possible way forward towards blessing of same sex partnerships which might, just might receive agreement in our church if we saw our way to a pragmatic, pastoral approach.

"On the basis of those beliefs, I believe that the time has come when the Church can:

Heed the testimonies of LGBT believers who tell us that their orientation dates from earliest childhood and that it was not wilfully chosen, and that supposed re-orientation therapies do not work for them, no matter how whole-heartedly they engage with them.

Heed their testimony that they are not able to form a meaningful, soul-satisfying heterosexual relationship, yet feel barred by the Church from entering a relationship with someone of their own orientation.

Hear their anguish at this state of affairs.

Recognise that a faithful same-sex union is not a threat to the Kingdom of God if it is welcomed and guarded with the same pastoral care as a heterosexual union.

And therefore declare that, while same-sex unions were not part of God’s pre-Fall design for humankind, faithful unions of that kind are covered by the grace of Christ in his redemptive plan and can be accepted and blessed within the Church."

At the conclusion of his post he appeals:

"Dear faithful, conservative pastor-teachers, I appeal to you. Please lift your eyes from your systematic theologies and look unblinkingly at the God whom your studies should have revealed to you. Engage both your heart and your brain. Cease selling God’s love short by trying to make his judgment triumph over his mercy when you deal with LGBT people, by demanding of them what, after all, God does not. Recognise instead that, as Cranmer put it in his great Eucharistic prayer, God is “the same Lord whose nature is always to have mercy.” Be imitators of him, your Saviour."Post PostscriptMy attention has been drawn to an article by David Runcorn in a recent CEN. As an evangelical in the CofE, associated with the recent Pilling Report, Runcorn asks himself and fellow evangelicals the question, 'How would we know when we have got it wrong?'Runcorn powerfully makes the point that for decades evangelical South Africans did not realise they had 'got it wrong' on apartheid, thinking that the Bible supported that foul social doctrine. He asks, through a series of reflections and questions, how evangelicals reading the Bible today might know when they have 'got it wrong' on homosexuality.It is worth a read.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

I reckon Archbishop Philip Freier (Melbourne) speaks sense here. He argues that the church which is mostly conservative on marriage in a country with building momentum towards sanctioning gay marriage should opt out of being the state's agent for conducting the legalities of marriage.

Key paragraphs are:

"That being so, it might be thought anomalous that the church remains the state's representative when it comes to performing marriage, that ministers of religion (along with civil celebrants) act on behalf of the state by performing a legal ceremony that is recognised and legitimised by the state.

The Marriage Act has already registered significant social changes, such as providing safeguards for de facto partners. Same-sex marriage would be a far more significant step away from the Christian understanding of marriage that prevailed when the law was first enacted.

While same-sex marriage stretches this conception of marriage, it seems that in other respects we as a society have very traditional perspectives. Bigamy or polygamy remain taboo. Yet if the argument from the freedom of human choice stands – that it is unjust to deny people the chance to marry whomsoever they want – then we should recognise that polygamy is widely practised in many societies around the world. Islam allows up to four wives – under certain circumstances – yet when a Melbourne sheikh proposed legalising polygamy several years ago the reaction was outrage.

It might be time to make sanctioning legal marriage a matter purely for the state. Perhaps the people who register marriages should simply be public servants who attest to the bona fides of the parties to the marriage. Marriage could be made more accessible by online registration and processing."

I like the way that he acknowledges that a country such as Australia is both open to change re marriage while retaining some 'traditional perspectives.'

Incidentally, for Kiwi readers following the Motion 30 debate, perhaps especially in the Diocese of Christchurch, there may be some interest in the following motion to our September Synod:

"That this Diocese of Christchurch request that General Synod receive, discuss, and then table the Report of the Motion 30 Working Group in order that there may be four years of education across our church on the substance of the Motion 30 Report."

Since this motion comes from our Standing Committee, it has an important momentum behind it.

For overseas readers, our next General Synod is in May 2016; the Motion 30 Working Group is working on recommendations ranging across matters such as the blessing of same gender relationships, holding our church together across difference, theologies of marriage and ordination.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Here are some things
I hope you will find encouraging and thought provoking:

#1 Vaughan Roberts on what Jesus left behind; #2 Kendall Harmon on current
challenges for Christians and society; #3 William Taylor considers the Gospel
at work; #4 Interesting discussion with Tom Wright and Peter Thiel on future
ethical challenges including 'trans-humanism' - which has generated some
discussion at #14. #13 some commentary and resources on current marriage moves;
#14 Call to prayer from the Church of England Evangelical Council; and with #16
Christians in Singapore spent Sunday in prayer; #17 the bigger picture.

PRAYER
Please pray for those grieving from recent attacks, particularly in Tunisia;
for the Church of England and the Scottish Episcopal Church; for Christians and
all facing persecution and crime in Syria and Iraq, Nigeria, Egypt and Sudan;
for those affected by the earthquakes in Nepal; for peace in Burundi, Ukraine,
Israel and Gaza; and for the Diocese of South Carolina.

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Tobias Haller writes about TEC's recent decision to canonically redefine marriage to be about two persons, not only about a man and a woman,

'The canonical amendment, in the drafting of which I participated, is, in my likely not sufficiently humble opinion, simultaneously orthodox and comprehensive. I challenge anyone opposed to it to point to any line in it that contradicts the teaching of the church. It is true that it omits reference to "man and woman" -- but omission does not constitute denial. Again, some may find this too subtle, but it is true.'

Here, it seems to me, Haller makes a claim that TEC has extended or developed its doctrine of marriage, but not created a new doctrine.

But some seem to view TEC's recent decision as a new revelation granted by the Holy Spirit. I make a comment at that post which ridicules the notion of a new revelation because it is ridiculous, except in one respect. I guess if you wish to assert a teaching which is out of step with nearly the whole of the rest of the universal church, both now and in the past, then logically you can only justify such an assertion by claiming it is valid as a new revelation. Otherwise, frankly, we are into heresy.

Heresy? Yes, because heresy is a distortion of existing doctrine which is not accepted as consistent with that doctrine by wider members of the church. (Or, heresy is acclaimed new doctrine which is not incorporated into the body of doctrine already accepted by the church).

What has TEC distorted in respect of marriage as understood by Anglicans around the world?

Let's go back to a citation in my post below:

'Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of N. and N. in Holy Matrimony. The joining of two people in a life of mutual fidelity signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and so it is worthy of being honored among all people.' from p. 98 of this TEC material, cited by Anglican Curmudgeon.

TEC's new marriage doctrine involves distorting the plain meaning of the underlying Scripture when we speak of marriage and its mysteries in relation to the mystery of the union between Christ and the church. It is bold and frank in its attempt to extend the Scriptural understanding of marriage to incorporate marriage between any two persons but the price it pays is to distort Scripture. (From this faulty basis, incidentally, the bold claim is made 'and so it is worthy of being honored among all people.' Once a church agrees to the premise and this conclusion, it must eject all its ministers who disagree.)

There is more to consider about the heretical nature of the new doctrine.

(1) It can make no claim that it is reaching back into the beginnings of the church's teaching on marriage to rediscover something which was there but then got obscured. There is no route from the teaching in Scripture and in the tradition of the church to extend the meaning of marriage from a covenantal partnership between a man and a woman to a covenantal partnership between any two persons.

(2) It can make no claim to being an understanding which either everyone, everywhere has always believed, or even nearly everyone, everywhere has nearly always believed.

(3) In respect of Haller's claim re comprehensiveness (if it be a presumption by TEC as to what it has done), we are in novel Anglican territory. Let me explain.

Previously Anglican comprehensiveness has been about the capacity of Anglicanism to live with a variety of understandings about doctrinal matters under a shared umbrella of some common understanding. The classic doctrine is eucharistic understanding. The umbrella has been acceptance that Jesus said, "This [bread] is my body." The comprehensiveness has been the acceptance of a variety of understandings of what "is" means (representation through to transubstantiation, Zwingli to Aquinas). But now Haller makes a move which is akin to the umbrella itself being the subject of comprehension, a move akin to claiming that Jesus didn't really mean "This [bread] is my body" but "Any food (including bread) is my body."

On Haller's notion of comprehensiveness, TEC is claiming that it can remain part of the Anglican body of churches while shifting its understanding of marriage from 'a man and a woman' to 'any two people (including, a man and a woman). But Anglican comprehensiveness is not an infinitely pliable concept. Haller's conception seems to be.

On his logic above 'omission does not constitute denial', marriage could be determined to mean anything, providing it did not exclude the possibility that it includes marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage between any two sentient beings or marriage between any number of sentient beings greater than one would fit his 'omission does not constitute denial.' This is plasticity not comprehensiveness.

We should ask and keep on asking, where does the Scriptural and traditional doctrine of marriage as understood by Anglicans (itself an understanding shared by most Christians around the world through Christian history, points of difference notably focused on the endings of marriage (divorce/remarriage) and not on marriage itself) require an extension which changes its own core definition?

Now, just before someone labels me a homophobic bigot, let me point out two things.

First, that the House Of Bishops has spoken warmly about the Communion Partner bishops (those bishops within the House who emphasise the importance of walking in step with the Communion) who have dissented from the recent decision on same gender marriage. We can read what the Communion Partner bishops have to say here.

Secondly, there is another way forward for Anglicans to move - a way which some Anglican churches are considering, including my own (as per Motion 30). That way is to consider the possibility that permission might be given for those who wish to bless partnerships between any two persons might do so.

An advantage of this way of proceeding is that it need not involve heresy because it need not change the doctrine of marriage. It is controversial, because not all Anglicans are willing to accept that such blessings are not prohibited by Scripture and tradition. It is a matter of continuing argument, because such a move rests on an arguable presumption that what is not addressed is not prohibited and is thereby permissible. (See comments to post below for arguments back and forth).

But it is something to consider on two grounds (at least): (1) some conscientious Anglicans (with a conscience in respect both of Scripture and tradition and in respect of gay couples in their congregations) wish to have this permission; (2) at least in countries such as Aotearoa New Zealand which legally permit gay marriage, it is appropriate that somewhere in the life of the church some manner of liturgical recognition be available for those who choose a pattern of partnership which is covenanted.

TEC, however, has gone beyond this step.

Many Anglicans around the world, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, have big questions about this step.

I am suggesting here that those questions include the very significant question of whether TEC has now committed itself to heretical doctrine of marriage.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

'"All I did was get in the way of the Holy Spirit, and she’s a fierce tornado,” Louie Crew

'Rather than Scripture being unambiguous about homosexual practice, it is patently inconclusive about committed gay relationships. It would take a good deal of intellectual gymnastics to pretend otherwise.

Best we can do: if you don't agree with a committed same-sex relationship, don't have one. Don't demand everyone bless it. Allow those who agree to bless it to do so.' Mike, commenting here at ADU.

'Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of N. and N. in Holy Matrimony. The joining of two people in a life of mutual fidelity signifies to us the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church, and so it is worthy of being honored among all people.' from p. 98 of this TEC material, cited by Anglican Curmudgeon.

Over in Utah, TEC's General Convention (GC) is moving in a predictable direction re changing the doctrine of marriage as understood by that member church of the Anglican Communion.(All done and dusted, today, Thursday 2 July NZ time)

Long time prophetic spokesman and energetic activist for change, Louie Crew's comment is a reminder of the intense belief of many Episcopalians that where they are heading is led by none other than the Holy Spirit.

The words highlighted by Anglican Curmudgeon raise the question whether the Holy Spirit would be party to an invented theology of 'the mystery of the union between Christ and his Church' for nowhere in Scripture or tradition can we find any sign that 'the joining of two people in a life of mutual fidelity signifies to us the mystery etc.' That signification comes from the marriage of a man and a woman (Ephesians 5:22-33). I suggest that many other Anglican churches are going to baulk at TEC going that far in, frankly, distorting the text of Scripture.

The comment from Mike makes a very fair point about the ambiguity of Scripture over the possibility that same-sex relationships might be blessed (albeit the point is arguable), and offers an olive branch in respect of the possibility of being a church which permits those who agree that such relationships may be blessed to proceed to bless them while not being a church which demands that every minister must so bless. In many respects what Mike says is where my bet at the TAB would be placed for where ACANZP is going to go - albeit with recommendations yet to be published, General Synod and diocesan synods yet to deliberate, etc.

Quo vadis?

Well, rather than me wax further, I thoroughly recommend reading Jordan Hylken's report on the House of Bishop's decision, 'Marriage Redefined?'. It is both careful and considered. What do you think?

Epilogue: there will be many in the Communion who wish to say, "Enough is enough, TEC must now go." Perhaps. But could we be kind and say, 'TEC is charting new territory. Frankly it looks completely disagreeable and wrong-headed. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's think of them as undergoing a radical experiment in marriage redefinition. How about they report back to us in 2028 about how the experiment is going?'

(3) For a clarion call back to our roots in the first century, go to The Gospel Side.

(4) Andrew Goddard at Psephizo poses some questions about sexual ethics in the light of same gender marriage. And the comments (especially if you recognise the names of some of the key 'players' in the UK scene) are fascinating ...

Yes, momentous events are happening around the ecclesiastical world, particularly in Utah, where the TEC General Convention has worked contextually to approve polygamy same gender marriage (in the HOB, but the HOD is sure to agree). I am working on a post on that. Perhaps later today ...

Meanwhile, for your amusement, Steve Wright at Faith and Theology has offered all bloggers help with smarter, more enticing post titles, also known as 'click-bait'.

Recent Comments

Solidarity

Anglican Down Under

Welcome to this blog on Anglican, theological, biblical and other matters, mostly missional or liturgical (but I reserve the right to write about cricket and politics). It is grounded in some islands at the bottom of the world which, together with a large island to our west, constitute fabulous Down Under.

I work for the Diocese of Christchurch and for Theology House, Christchurch, NZ. Views expressed here are not necessarily the views of either organisation. But I harbour the hope that what I say here is helpful to those with whom I am in fellowship because of these two entities!

ACANZP

ACANZP stands for Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia. In Aotearoa New Zealand this church is also known as Te Haahi Mihinare - The Missionary Church. (I work in ministry training and theological education in this church as Director of Education and Director of Theology House in the Diocese of Christchurch. Views expressed here are personal and not those of the Diocese, but the intent is not to express any personal views contradictory of the Diocese's).

A flag for NZ

Icon

Pearls

Show us anything clearly set forth in Holy Scripture that we do not teach and we will teach it. Show us anything in our teaching or practice is clearly contrary to Holy Scripture, and we will abandon it.

Stephen Neill

For the glory of God is a human being fully alive, and the glory of humanity is the vision of God.

St Irenaeus

Fundamentally the Gospel is obsessed with the idea of the unity of human society.

Masure

We have returned to the Apostles and the old Catholic Fathers. We have planted no new religion, but only preserved the old that was undoubtedly founded and used by the Apostles of Christ and other holy Fathers of the Primitive Church.

Bishop Jewel

Preachers shall behave themselves modestly and soberly in every department of their life. But especially shall they see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine.

Canon 6 from the 1571 Bishop’s Convocation

Kent: "See better, Lear, and let me still remain."

William Shakespeare

For the clarity that we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear.

Wittgenstein

Justice is eternal, and doesn't depend at all on human conventions.

Montesquieu

The real challenge of Islam to Western intellectual discourse is for us to ask ourselves whether our unprecedented modern experiment of conducting political life with no transcendent values is really working out as well as we once hoped.

Harvey Cox

The long-term happiness of a society depends on how individuals behave towards each other, how families hold together, and how leaders keep the trust of people.

William Hague

Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.

John Neuhaus

To be an evangelical is not, first and foremost, about doctrinal correctness, but about a passion for the gospel of salvation from sin through Christ for eternity.

John Richardson

Neither may we ... lightly esteem what hath been allowed as fit in the judgement of antiquity, and by the long continued practice of the whole church; from which unnecessarily to swerve, experience hath never as yet found it safe.

Richard Hooker (Lawes, V.7.1)

The function of the Christian canon was to separate the apostolic witness from the ongoing tradition of the church, whose truth was continually in need of being tested by the apostolic faith.

Brevard S. Childs

Every word of God proves true. (Proverbs 30:5)

If the people of this religion are asked about the proof for the soundness of their religion, they flare up, get angry and spill the blood of whoever confronts them with this question. They forbid rational speculation, and strive to kill their adversaries. This is why truth became thoroughly silenced and concealed.

Muhammad ibn Zakariya Razi

Change comes through ordinary working people organising themselves to struggle for a better world day in, day out.

Morning Star newspaper editorial Tuesday 5 May 2015

"In the soft grey silence he could hear the bump of the balls: and from here and from there through the quiet air the sound of the cricket bats: pick, pack, pock, puck: like drops of water in a fountain falling softly in the brimming bowl."

James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man

Moderation Policy

Ad hominem attacks, potentially libellous comments, and comments with the appearance of being generated by a machine are liable to be rejected. Try hard not to use these words and their cognates: bigot, hypocrite, homophobia. Figure it out!

My strong preference here is for NO anonymous commenters. Please supply at least a first name. Some non de plumes allowed here belong to people I know personally. Anonymous comments published here likely pass on content grounds. Anonymity combined with ad hominems = strike out.

Subscribe To

About Me

Blog Top Sites

Pageviews last month

Visitor Locations

Glossary

For people for whom NZ English is not their native tongue here are some translations of regular Maori words used here or in linked articles: Aotearoa: name for New Zealand; aroha: love; Ariki: lord; Atua: God; hui: gathering, assembly, conference; hui amorangi: regional area under leadership of regional bishop within Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa (Diocese of Aotearoa); kai: food; kai moana: sea food; Ihu: Jesus; iwi: tribe; Karaiti: Christ; Kotahitanga/Te Kotahitanga: within ACANZP, the council responsible for drawing together the hopes and aspirations of the three tikanga for theological education and ministry training and transforming them into policy and into recommendations to the St John's College Trust Board for expenditure of educational funds; also the Board of Governors of St John's College (the primary, but not the only object of SJCTB expenditure); koha: gift, responsive gift to hospitality offered; mana: power, respect, honour; marae: community meeting area, including meeting hall and dining room; mihi: speech; moana: sea, ocean; pihopa: bishop; pihopatanga: bishopric, diocese; powhiri: welcome ceremony; rangimarie: peace; tangata: people; tangi: funeral; taonga: treasure; tikanga: culture, cultural stream, within ACANZP: one of the three strands, Maori [Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa], Pakeha [NZ Dioceses], or Pasefika (Diocese of Polynesia) which make up our whole church under the authority of General Synod while being self-governing for many aspects of church life in each of the tikanga; waiata: song; wairua: spirit; Wairua Tapu: Holy Spirit; waka: canoe; whanau: family, extended family.